| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| US lawmakers push to phase out wartime contractors - In the middle of a war. |
| 2010-02-23 |
| WASHINGTON — Two lawmakers announced legislation Monday that would force the United States to phase out its controversial use of private security contractors in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky and Independent Senator Bernie Sanders said they planned to introduce the "Stop Outsourcing Security Act" on Tuesday. "The legislation would restore the responsibility of the American military to train troops and police, guard convoys, repair weapons, administer military prisons, and perform military intelligence," their offices said. "The bill also would require that all diplomatic security be undertaken by US government personnel," they said. The US reliance on private security contractors has drawn heavy fire, notably after a 2007 incident in which employees of Blackwater, since renamed Xe, were accused of shooting to death 17 civilians in Baghdad. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #6 Maybe Bernie will piss off Blackwater/Xe enough that they'll put a crew together and take over Vermont. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2010-02-23 19:37 |
| #5 Schakowsky and Sanders are two despicable pieces of excrement. Always have been, always will. At least Sander's spouse wasn't convicted of criminal acts |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-02-23 19:31 |
| #4 Contractors are simply the first target of these leftest surrender monkeys. The ultimate target is the military itself. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-02-23 10:01 |
| #3 At the end of Gulf War I, the US had 750,000 in its Army. At the start of this current WOT, the US had 480,000 in the Army. It took several years and painful frequent rotation policies to add about another 30,000 in a 'temporary' increase. Now the usual suspects want to once again decree added missions without the resources. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-02-23 09:48 |
| #2 Contractors are the wave of the future, because they are a LOT cheaper than using conventional forces, that cost an arm and a leg, to do things like flip hamburgers. And having our military guarding a bunch of wealthy and connected foreign VIPs, who could easily afford their own security, just so they can show how much "juice" they have to their countrymen, is demeaning. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-02-23 08:55 |
| #1 So WHEN (not if) American military personnel have to shoot up some people to defend our diplomats there won't be any available scapegoat to blame for 'excessive force.' Somehow that doesn't sound like an optimal PR plan to me. Of course, maybe our military people will be given (and follow, of course) restrictive ROE, and some diplomats would get killed..... |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-02-23 08:40 |